Adjudicators must only decide issues raised by parties; findings on unpleaded matters constitute jurisdictional overreach, justifying setting aside the adjudication decision.

(Enclosure 1)

Nadzarin Wok Nordin J:

Introduction

[1] OS 65 is AWP Properties Sdn Bhd ("AWP") application under s 15(b) and (d) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) to set aside the Adjudication Decision dated 3 Mac 2023 ("AD") given in favor of Carlson Construction Sdn Bhd ("CCSB") whilst OS 66 is AWP's application for a stay of the AD under s 16 CIPAA pending the disposal of the arbitration proceedings between the parties.

[2] There is also CCSB's application in OS 62 to enforce the AD pursuant to s 28 CIPAA.

[3] All the aforesaid matters were heard together as they contain the same set of facts and related to the same parties.

Brief Back Ground Facts

[4] Vide a Letter of Award dated 5 Jun 2018, Ace appointed Carlson as a Subcontractor to carry out construction work for a Project known as "Cadangan Membina Bangunan Kedai Pejabat yang mengandungi Fasa 1 a) 8 Unit Kedai Pejabat 3 Tingkat b) 20 Unit Kedai Pejabat 2 Tingkat c) 1 Unit Loji Rawatan Kumbahan d) 1 Unit Tangki Air yang mengandungi Rumah Pam & Tangki Sedutan e) 1 Unit Stesen Pam f) 1 Unit Pencawang Elektrik Fasa 2 a) 8 Unit Kedai Pejabat 3 Tingkat b) 24 Unit Kedai Pejabat 2 Tingkat c) 2 Unit Pencawang Elektrik di aras Lot 31182, Mukim Gali, Daerah Raub, Pahang Darui Makmur untuk Tetuan Teratai Kilauan Sdn Bhd)" ("the Project") ("the Subcontract").

[5] The price of the Subcontract was RM20,000,000.00. ("the Subcontract Sum").

[6] Throughout the said Project, Carlson has diligently carried out the Subcontract Work ("Works") and from time to time had submitted claims or Invoices to Ace for payment. Upon receipt of Carlson's Progress Claims, Ace issued the Certificates and paid Carlson for the Works done under the Subcontract.

[7] The disputes arose between Carlson and Ace in relation to the Subcontract, including disputes over the payment of Carlson's Progress Claim from Ace.

[8] In and around February 2022, Carlson submitted its Progress Claim No 34 for Ace's certification. To this effect, Ace issued its Progress Certificate No 34 acknowledging, certifying and verifying that Carlson had carried out works under the Subcontract amounting to RM18,007,003.11.

[9] As at that date, a sum of RM15,785,157.74 had been paid by Ace to Carlson under the previous certificates leaving a balance of RM1,221,845,37 (after deduction of RM1,000,000.00 retention sum) still due and owing under Progress Certificate No 34.

[10] Pursuant to cl 6.0 of the Letter of Award, Ace is to make payment within 30 days from the date of the Progress Certificate. Carlson's Progress Certificate No 34 was issued to Ace on 20 Februari 2022 and therefore, balance payment of RM1,221,845,37 was due and payable by 22 Mac 2022.

[11] Notwithstanding the above, Carlson thereafter issued its Final Progress Claim No 36 dated 15 April 2022 with all supporting documents for the sum of RM2,937,609.82 (including retention sum but less all previous certified amount) to the Project Architect for its certification.

[12] Pursuant to cl 30.1 of the Agreement and Conditions of PAM Contract 2006 (Without Quantities), the Project Architect shall issue a certificate within 21 days from the date of receipt of the progress claim, which is on 6 Mei 2022. However, to date, the Project Architect has not issued its certificate to Carlson.

[13] Further, since the progress certificate ought to have been issued to Carlson on 6 Mei 2022 and Ace is to make payment within 30 days from the date of the progress certificate, the b